Urge to Purge

• Author: Mark Walsh
• Pages: 20-21

Urge to Purge

Court considers whether Ohio’s methods of cleaning up voter

registration rolls go too far By Mark Walsh

Larry Harmon, a software engineer and U.S. Navy

veteran from Kent, Ohio, typically has voted in pres-

idential and gubernatorial elections. But starting

with the 2010 midterms and continuing into the

next two federal elections, he skipped going to the polls.

“In 2012, I was disillusioned with the candidates and the

political process, so I decided to abstain from voting, which

was my own way of having my voice heard,” Harmon said

in court papers. “There’s no option on a ballot for ‘none of

the above,’ so I stayed home and expressed my political

preference that way.”

Harmon is now at the center of

a major U.S. Supreme Court case

regarding the methods aut horized by

federal law for the states to clea n up

their voter registrat ion rolls.

In Ohio, after a voter fai ls to

participate in an ele ction during a

two-year period , which could mean

missing just one election, the stat e

sends an address ver ification notice.

If the voter fails to resp ond, the

state eventuall y removes the voter.

In November 2015, after skipping

those prior ele ctions, Harmon

arrived at his poll ing place to vote

in an Ohio state elect ion. “I was told

that my name was not in the poll

book, meaning I was not reg istered

to vote and therefore could not vote

in the election,” Harmon said in a

court dec laration.

“I was very upset,” he added.

“My registration was c anceled

even though I had not moved, and

the state had acc urate records at

their disposal th at would have shown

the reality: That I st ill resided at my

add re ss.”

Although Ohio had sent Harmon

a notice in 2011, he said he never

received it. “Because I ha d voted

in prior elections, I believed I

was registere d to vote in the 2015

election,” Harmon said. “I do not

remember ever receiving a notice

in the mail aski ng me to confirm

my address or warni ng me that my

voter registration would be c anceled

if I did not vote.”

ONE LAW, TWIN GOALS

The question posed in Husted v.

A. Philip Randolph Institute, w hich

is scheduled for argument Jan. 10, is

whether Ohio’s process is consistent

with the National Voter Registrat ion

Act of 1993.

That federal law, also known as

the “motor voter law,” made it easier

for voters to register at motor vehi-

cle oces and by mail. But the law

also contains det ailed provisions that

encourage the states to m aintain

“accurate and current” registration

rolls and remove the names of ineli-

gible voters—such as those who have

died, those who’ve moved or those

convicted of a cri me.

The NVR A also specifies that

the states’ voter-roll ma intenance

programs “shall not resu lt in the

removal of the name of any person

… by reason of the person’s failure

to vote.”

Congress amended the law in 2002

to make clear that t he states could

remove a voter who failed to respond

to a notice about potential remova l

and subsequently did not vote in two

or more consecu tive general election s

for federal oce.

The Ohio secretary of s tate’s pol-

icy on cleaning up the voter rolls is

at issue in this case . The secretary’s

oce directs count y boards of elec-

tions to send notices to voters who

fail to vote for a two-yea r period and

to remove any such person who does

not respond to the notice and doesn’t

vote in the subsequent four years.

What this means, a ccording to

challengers, is that Ohio’s policy is

the harshest in the nation in t erms

of purging its voter rolls.

“Ohio is the only state that does

it based on not voting in a two-yea r

period,” says Dale E. Ho, direct or of

the American Civ il Liberties Union’s

Voting Rights Project, which along

with the public policy group Demos,

is representing Harmon and two

Ohio nonprofit organizations. “It

doesn’t make a lot of sense to assume

that most registere d voters move

every two year s.”

Ohio Attorney General M ike

DeWine, a Republican, said in a

court brief that the t win goals of the

NVR A and its amendments were to

Supreme

Court

Report

The Docket

20 || ABA JOURNAL JANUARY 2018